> " They're announcing their achievement in bicycle racing, achieved on a private track that nobody can audit, using supposedly a bike that nobody has seen before."
To be fair, the metaphor breaks down here.
In research the private track and the bike used are not relevant, the result is what's relevant to be opened for review and scrutiny (which OpenAI does).
(If someone provably solved cold-fusion, the achievement won't be disqualified because it was solved with "private tools")
My point is rather that the achievement was reached by presenting yourself as an "assistant" to other researchers in the field, and then exploiting their "good faith" by combining all their notes with multi-million dollar resources to publish faster than they can.
They could also supply those multi-million dollar resources to the researchers directly, but they chose not to. And this is what they should be condemned for.
To be fair, the metaphor breaks down here.
In research the private track and the bike used are not relevant, the result is what's relevant to be opened for review and scrutiny (which OpenAI does).
(If someone provably solved cold-fusion, the achievement won't be disqualified because it was solved with "private tools")
My point is rather that the achievement was reached by presenting yourself as an "assistant" to other researchers in the field, and then exploiting their "good faith" by combining all their notes with multi-million dollar resources to publish faster than they can.
They could also supply those multi-million dollar resources to the researchers directly, but they chose not to. And this is what they should be condemned for.